- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.7439 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE SRI BHOGAPPANA MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O VARUNA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005 2. SMT NANJAMANNI W/O SRI MAHANTADEVARU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O DANDIKERE VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU -570 005 3. SRI MALLESHA S/O SRI MAHANTADEVARU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O DANDIKERE VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU -570 005. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BASAVANNA K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT KEMPAMMA W/O LATE SRI KOOSAPPANA MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. - 2 - R-1 DEAD, PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE THE LR9S OF RESPONDENT NO.1 2. SRI SHIVANANJAPPA S/O LATE SRI KOOSAPPANA MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 2a. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 2b. SRI. MALLESH, S/O LATE SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 2c. SRI. MAHESH, S/O LATE SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 2d. SMT. NAGAMMA, D/O LATE SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA, W/O SRI. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O MOMBALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 3. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE SRI.KOOSAPPANA MADAPPA - 3 - AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 4. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O LATE SRI KOOSAPPANA MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 5. SRI SHAMBULINGAPPA S/O LATE SRI KOOSAPPANA MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 6. SRI NAGENDRA S/O LATE SRI KOOSAPPANA MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O GEJJEGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 005. 7. SRI M G GANESHPRASAD S/O LATE SRI JANARDHANAIAH R/O NO.644, BEHIND VIDHYARANYA COMPLEX, VIDHYARANYAPURAM, KILLE MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 008. 8. SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE SRI JANARDHANAIAH R/O NO.644, BEHIND VIDHYARANYA COMPLEX, VIDHYARANYAPURAM, KILLE MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 008. 9. SRI B M SHIVAKUMAR S/O SRI BASAPPA, - 4 - R/O NO.91, 6TH CROSS V MAIN ROAD, SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL ROAD, VIDHYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU -570 008. 10. SRI V MAHESH S/O SRI VENKATACHALA, R/O NO.1111, JLB ROAD, VIDHYARANYAPURAM KOLLE MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 008. 11. SRI S P CHANDRASHKEAR S/O SRI S V PALAKSHAIAH, R/O NO.02, 8TH MAIN ROAD, SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL ROAD, VIDHYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. 12. SRI VRUSHABENDRAPPA S/O SRI BASAPPA R/O NARASIPURA VILLAGE JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN-573 103. 13. SRI DIWAKAR K V S/O SRI VEERANNA K C R/O NO.KUNAGATTE HALLI, VARUNA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN-573103. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R6, SRI. DILIP KUMAR L., ADV. FOR SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADV. FOR R12 AND 13, R2(A),R2(B),R2(C),R2(D) 3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED. V/O. DT. 09/02/2024 PETITIONERS AND R-2 TO R-6 ARE THE LR9S OF DECD R1, R3,R4,R5,R8,R9,R11 3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED. V/O/DT. 09.02.2024 NOTICE TO R7 IS H/S, NOTICE TO R10 IS H/S AS PER POSTAL TRACK.) - 5 - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.19.3.2021 ON IA NO.6 IN O.S.NO.282/2015 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU AS PER ANENXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 on I.A. No. 6 in O.S. No. 282/2015 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru. 2. The Petitioners 1 to 3 herein are the Plaintiffs 1 to 3 before the Trial Court. The Respondents 1 and 2 are defendants 1 and 2 before the trail Court. The Respondents 2(a) to (d) are LRs of Respondent 2 (since dead on 27.07.2017). The Respondents 3 to 13 are Defendants 3 to 13. - 6 - 3. The Brief Facts are as follows: The petitioners are the plaintiffs, and the respondents are the defendants. The ancestral joint family properties were owned by the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6, managed by Defendant No.1-Smt. Kempamma. The properties were jointly enjoyed by the family after the death of Sri Koosappana Madappa. The plaintiffs allege that Defendants No.1 to 6, without their consent and in collusion with the revenue authorities, changed the property records (khatas) in their own name and sold the properties to Defendants No.10 to 13 through multiple registered sale deeds between 2005 and 2006. Based on these sales, the purchasers obtained conversion orders and developed residential layouts. When the plaintiffs demanded their rightful shares, Defendants No.1 to 6 refused. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of their shares in the properties. Some defendants, including Defendants No.1 to 6 and 11, were placed ex-parte, while - 7 - Defendants Nos.12 to 13 contested the suit, claiming to be bona fide purchasers who had verified title deeds and changed the revenue records in their favour. The trial court framed six issues on 07.07.2017. The plaintiffs, including Plaintiff No.1, presented evidence and were cross-examined by Defendants No.12 to 13. Defendant No.13, after being examined as DW1, did not appear for cross-examination, which was marked as "NIL." On 12.03.2021, Plaintiff No.3 filed an application I.A.No.6 to amend the pleadings to include agricultural lands left out at the time of filing the suit. The trial court rejected this amendment application on 19.03.2021, on the ground that the evidence from both parties had been completed and the case was posted for arguments. 4. Heard counsels for Petitioner and for Respondents 6, 12 and 13. The remaining Respondents were served but unrepresented. 5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trial court wrongly dismissed the - 8 - amendment application, as incorporating the properties would not alter the nature of the suit. 6. It was also contended that no prejudice would occur to the defendants since the amendment did not affect their defense, and the amendment was only for better adjudication of the matter. 7. It was further contended that, the trial court violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the amendment application without valid grounds, especially since the contesting defendants did not object. 8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff9s 1/9th share each in the schedule property and also for mesne profits. Further, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the daughters of one Kosappana Madappa and Kemamma (1st defendant) and defendants are the brother and sisters. The 3rd plaintiff was the only son of late Doddathayamma who was the daughter of - 9 - Kosappana Madappa and Kemamma (1st defendant) and the other defendants, i.e., defendants 2 to 6 are the sons of the Kosappana Madappa and Kemamma. The suit schedule property is ancestral joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 who constitute Joint Hindu Family. The pending adjudication of the suit, the plaintiffs came to know that due to inadvertence, in filing the suit with regard to certain factual aspects of family properties belonging to our predecessors and also not provided the family property details and thereafter, obtained the property documents. In view of the same, the petitioner filed I.A.6 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint to incorporate the family and property details. It would be suffice to refer to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as under: "The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. - 10 - Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial". 9. As seen from the records, it is observed that the defendants have not filed any objection to I.A.No.6, but Defendants No.12 and 13 are contesting as bonafide purchasers of the schedule property mentioned in the suit and further, it appears that as per Para No.5 of the written statement <the plaintiffs have not included all the properties of Kosappana Madappa and the plaintiffs cannot pick and choose the properties for their convenience to file a suit for partition.= In view of this contention raised by the defendants No.12 and 13, it appears that plaintiffs are having some other properties which are not included in the suit for seeking relief of partition and separate possession. As per the written statement filed by Defendants No.12 and 13, it clearly reveals that some of the details and properties are not properly included in the suit by the plaintiffs. - 11 - 10. In view of the above discussion, ther9e are no latches on the part of the petitioner to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint as mentioned in the I.A. As seen from the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court failed to appreciate the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC properly, i.e., <The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.= In the present case, it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties is that of permitting the plaintiffs for amending the pleadings and prayer which is not changing the character of the suit and the prayer. Further, it is also not prejudicial to the interest of the defendants who do not have any title on the basis of void documents. - 12 - 11. In view of the observation made by this Court, the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 on I.A. No. 6 in O.S. No. 282/2015 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru, is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed directing the petitioners to amend the plaint as per proposed amendment sought for in plaint and consequential prayer in I.A.No.6 in the suit as per Annexure-E on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysuru. Further, it is directed that the trial Court, after amending the suit by giving opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law and also to dispose the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-HR